Ben Shapiro Has Advice For How “Christian Nationalism” Should Roll

“This is why when people on the right use the phrase Christian nationalism, people on the left hear, ‘ah, we’re talking about religious fascism.’ Well, no, when people say Christian nationalism typically what they mean is not that the official church of the United States should be the Catholic Church, or that the church of the United States should dictate terms of service in the United States. What it means instead, when people say Christian nationalism is that undergirding the values of the United States are a set of Judeo-Christian values, and when you jettison those values you destroy the United States.”

Ben Shapiro

1.) I agree that Christian Nationalists are not and should not be looking for an official Church of these united States. In my estimation Christian Nationalists should be looking that the nation should swear allegiance to Jesus Christ as King of Kings and Lord of Lords and then be ruled consistent with His Law-Word. We should be done with the dishonoring pluralism that allows false gods to populate God’s land (“The earth is the Lord‘s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.”– Psalm 24:1) with the result of the war of all against all. There is no social order harmony where there are gods owned by the social order who grossly contradict one another in their salvation, character and ethic.

2.) Remember, all Nations are headed by some God or God-concept.  Our nation bows the knee to the god of pluralism and that god is ultimately controlled by the FEDS since it is the FEDS who have the final word as to how far any of the gods and/or all of the gods can walk in the public square. The Mormon God says “polygamy” but the FEDS say “no polygamy.” The Christian GOD says “no sodomy” but the FEDS say “sodomy.” The native American God says “smoke peyote as a religious rite” but the FEDS say “no smoking peyote as a religious rite.” The Muslim God says “Sharia Law” the FEDS say “no Sharia law.” You see, in our Pluralism the FEDS are serving as the God over the gods. We are as a religious people, with a religious State, as you can find anywhere else. It just so happens that our God is Pluralism and the God who is pluralism is controlled by the FEDS. So, naturally if the State is going to be religious (and all States are) Christians should desire a Christian Nationalism where the State bows to the authority of Jesus Christ as expressed in the Scripture. If the State is always hopelessly religious (and it always is) than why should Christians be satisfied with anything but Christian Nationalism (they shouldn’t)?

3.) The idea of “Judeo-Christian” values has been a mistake from when it began. We are a Christian people with Christian values. Not a Jewish people. Keep in mind that the Judeo-Christian values that Mr. Shapiro speaks of slams together on one hand the ultimate value of worshiping Jesus from the Christian side while on the other hand the ultimate estimation of the Judeo part of the equation is to affirm that Jesus is burning in hell in excrement for all of eternity. How does one arrive at “Judeo-Christian” values given that reality. No, the values we need are not “Judeo-Christian” but just plain Christian values.

So, by all means a return to Christian Nationalism. A return to the time where nearly all of our State Constitutions had language of loyalty to the Christian God as stated in the documents themselves as requirements for service in the State governments.

4.) I would contend that it is precisely because we have embraced “Judeo-Christian” values we have destroyed these united States.

Ben Shapiro writes again,

Again, I think it’s bad branding because I think it’s exclusive in a way it doesn’t need to be. Specifically because, even if you’re not religious, you can agree with the basic idea, even from a natural law (understanding). I mean, this is Catholic Church doctrine. You don’t have to be Catholic to believe that natural law actually undergirds the idea of family, undergirds the idea of God as an important part of public life. You don’t have to be some sort of crazed conservative nut to believe a country ought to control its own borders and that culture matters. All of these things matter.

Bret responds,

Of course Ben thinks Christian Nationalism is exclusive. It is exclusive and would read out of the movement those who want to continue to embrace the pluralism that comes with the embrace of “liberal democracy.” Liberal Democracy, which Ben supports and which has brought us to the place we are now at cannot be embraced in order to cure what ails us. It is what ails us.

And natural law? In this postmodern climate which classical liberalism has achieved there is no putting the toothpaste of natural law back in the tube to serve as a guide to our social order. Natural law is dead and the only thing that could bring it back to be a governing reality is brute force.

I also disagree with Ben about his “crazed conservative nut” part. I do think in our current climate that many people believe only a crazed conservative nut would think that “a country ought to control its own borders and that culture matters.” For pete’s sake we have scads of people now all around us who believe only a crazed conservative nut would think that there are only two genders and that race is not a merely social construct. If they can think that how much easier is it for them to think that only crazed conservative nuts believe that a country ought to control its own borders and that culture matters.”

No, Ben. Neither Natural Law nor shared Judeo-Christian values are going to save us now.

The Libertarianism of the Tuttle Twins Put On Display and Slain — A Presuppositional Reading of “Fate of the Future”

Just finished reading “Tuttle Twins: The Fate of the Future,” to two of my Grandsons.

The Tuttle Twins are becoming increasingly popular among Biblical Christian homeschoolers. All I can say after reading my first Tuttle Twins book is that parents better be ruddy well careful. This volume is toxic.

1.) It reduces ultra Libertarian Murray Rothbard’s “Anatomy of the State” to a child’s level.

2.) On the first two pages you find pictures of different races of peoples in a kind of multicultural setting.

3.) A quote from the book;

“Over time, these societies have created cultures — different foods, clothes, music, language, and religions.”

The problem with the above quote is that it is false that societies create cultures and it is false that societies create religions. In point of fact, it is Religion and People groups (as theology is poured over ethnicity) that create religions and then the culture that flowers is but the outward manifestation of a people’s religion and ethnicity. This Tuttle Twins book as it backwards. Culture is always downstream of religion. Sans the Tuttle Twin religion is NOT downstream of culture.

4.) Another quote from the book lifted from Rothbard

“The state is the systematization of the predatory process over a given territory.”

Certainly, this is likely true of any non-Christian state. However, this would not be how a Christian would define a state in a Godly Christian order. In a Christian order the state is not necessarily negative. In a Christian order the state is the means by which God brings order into a designed and very limited jurisdiction in concert with other governments in other jurisdictions in the same society. The Libertarian definition above of the State casts the State in a purely negative sense and pushes the reader (remember) towards a anarcho-capitalist type of position.

5.) Another quote;

“Most people in charge of the State want to do good things and help people — they’re not trying to be bad like gangsters.”

If the last quote above was overly negative in defining the State this quote is downright Pollyanna laughable. No child in any Christian home should be taught that kind of tripe. Children need to be told that the current State and the people in charge of the current State want to do harm and hazard to the American citizen and that the current people in charge of the State make gangsters look like Boy Scouts.

6.) Another quote;

“But these governments tend to always expand their power. Instead of just protecting the people, they begin controlling them and limiting what they can do.”

I thoroughly agree that it is a significant injurious problem that governments tend to always expand their power. However, the problem in the quote above arises with the intimation that it is always wrong for “governments to control and limit the population in what they can do.” The presupposition undergirding this statement is that the individual is sovereign and should not be controlled or limited in any way. Biblical governments, for example, should control and limit the population in what they can do if the population desires to do those things that are contrary to God’s Law Word. For the Libertarian authors of the Tuttle Twins the individual is sovereign. For the Biblical Christian God’s Law-Word is sovereign and because it is sovereign the government may well have to control and limit the population in what they can do.

7.) Another quote;

“Chief Ron says it’s never okay to use force in aggression, only in defense.”

This is the Libertarian cornerstone maxim called “the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP).” Of course it is utter nonsense. There are times when using force in aggression is required by God in his assignment to the government. For example, a Godly government would use force in aggression to put pornographers out of business. For example, a Godly government would use force in aggression against those who provide abortion.

The NAP prevents rectification of past crimes or injustices, so long as the original criminal has transferred the proceeds of his iniquity to someone else. In such cases those who have profited by ill-gotten booty can not have aggression visited upon them because their gain did not occur as a result of their aggression.

8.) Another Quote

“We’re people with rights just like them.”

Space does not allow to go into the details of all that is wrong with the “human rights” language. For our purposes here the Biblical Christian is more comfortable talking about the rights that arise out of and are a consequence of human duties laid upon us by the God of the Bible. Technically speaking, only God has right. People have duties. If we want to speak of “human rights” we better be very exacting in tracing those rights back to the authority of God’s word while at the same time demonstrating how if men will do their duty unto God the proper human rights will be the consequence.

9.) Another quote;

“‘The state is one type of government — but in society there are other types (of government) that don’t use coercion’, Mrs. Tuttle added. ‘Our family even has a a government.'”

Though it is not said explicitly the intimation here seems to be that the family is a government that doesn’t use coercion. A Biblical Christian still believes that the rod of correction is a proper instrument for parents. However, it is altogether believable to me that some true blue Libertarians would say parents using coercion are in error.

10.) Another quote;

“But ideally the government would persuade you to do business with them Rather than bullying people, they would have to be very nice and fair, just like the businesses we shop at every day. They would do their best to serve their customers.”

Here we see blatant in your face humanism. Notice the God of this system is the demands and desires of the customers. The customers and their demands and desires becomes the norm that norms all norms. However, what if the customer wants those things that God’s Law disallows? Should the government be very nice and fair and provide the customer those things? For the twins in the Tuttle home it is the desire of the consumer that is the lodestone by which all is governed. This is just humanism.

11.) Another quote:

“You know, there’s a name for this concept … it’s called polycentric law — when two or more governments compete in the same jurisdiction.”

If the previous quote was humanism on display this quote advocates polytheism. Keep in mind that law is always a reflection of some God or god concept. If there are many law centers in one social order that can only be as a result of many gods in one social order. Polycentric law requires polytheism. And for Libertarianism the god behind the different gods of polytheism would be the consumers (see #10 above) who choose which law (and so God) they prefer. There would be as many law systems and gods in one social order as there are consumers who prefer to be ruled by these differing polycentric law systems and polytheistic gods.


“Christian Academia” and it’s Inability to Think Christianly

“The deterioration of the historic roots of Christian orthodoxy upon the campuses of Christian learning is straightforward. Christian academicians isolate individual concepts and methods of choice from non-Christian thinkers and adopt them into their own ‘Christian’ worldview. In contrast, the directive that needs to be followed is that every concept and method presented by a non-Christian thinker must be subjected to a holistic critical analysis within the structure of the thinker’s own system.”

William Dennison 
In Defense of the Eschaton; Essays in Reformed Apologetics — pg. 78

Dennison’s point here is that before conceptual strands of thought as from non-Christians and non-Christian Weltanschauungs can be adopted by Christians and made a part of a Christian world and life view what first has to be done is that non-Christian conceptual strand of thought must be engaged, via a transcendental analysis, in order to see how that strand of conceptual thought is functioning in that non-Christian Weltanschauung. It may be the case that while the conceptual strand in and of itself is acceptable, it is functioning in a way that is not acceptable for a Christian as it exists in a Christian worldview.

In brief before adopting a conceptual strand from an alien worldview that conceptual strand must go through a surgical debridement process wherein the necrotic material from the original dysfunctional worldview wound is removed from the conceptual strand being adopted by the apologist who is doing the surgery. The conceptual strand must be cleansed of its former association before it can be grafted on to the healthy tissue of Biblical Christianity.

Dennison uses Plato’s doctrine of the immortality of the soul as an example. All Christians believe in the immortality of the soul but the Christian can not take Plato’s doctrine of the immortality of the soul en toto and just own it as a Christain doctrine. Only after putting  Plato’s pagan doctrine of the immortality of the soul through surgical debridement can that doctrine be accepted as being fit for a Christian worldview.

Dennison is insisting (rightly so) that Christian academia is NOT doing this and is instead too often borrowing from the Egyptian’s thought world without ridding the conceptual strand of its Egyptian skubala. What Christian academia too often is doing is that it takes elements from Romanticism or Darwinism or Existentialism, or Post-modernism, or Empiricism, or Barthianism, or Rationalism, or Freudianism or Skinnerism or any number of other anti-Christ worldviews and without putting the conceptual strands through a Biblical Transcendental analysis debridement process just affix these pagan conceptual strands to a Biblical Christian World and life view with the result that their “Christian” World and life view is not at all Christian. At least not consistently so.

Chain of Being Thinking and Implications

“A second essential point with respect to ancient philosophy: for ancient philosophy, being is one and continuous. Now, what does this mean? As Christians, as believers in the scriptures, we declare that God is uncreated being. He alone is God. Men are not Gods, men are not divine, we don’t have a spark of divinity in us, we are creatures. So that there are two kinds of being in the universe. The uncreated being, God, and the whole word of created being, man and all the creatures, the entire universe. This means, therefore, there is a vast gap between God and the universe, and the universe, nor any part of it, can ever be termed divine. But in ancient philosophy, there was only one continuous world of beings, so that the Gods, the men, all shared in this divinity.

Now some people were more godlike than others, the heroes were ones who were at least half-Gods. The rulers or emperors very often became completely God. Everyone had a little bit of God in them and it was just a case of developing that in them. So salvation meant becoming more and more a God, whereas for us salvation is accepting the redemptive work of God by faith.

Now, the background of this idea of one continuous being was that being arose out of chaos, and here you have the whole religion of revolution and that it is working its way up. And since it is evolving, and the idea of evolution is the hallmark of paganism, there was no idea of creation in paganism, whatever they may try to tell you. The way for this evolution to proceed is through chaos. It has to have chaos occasionally in order to step upward. And so this takes us to the religion of evolution.”

R. J. Rushdoony
Lecture — The Early Thinkers from Plato to Augustine Q&A-Delivered 1969

These three paragraphs explain the modern West for those with ears to hear. Some observations.

1.) If all being is continuous then all being participates in and is reflective of God.  Any distinctions that exist, exist only because some realities have more being in them than other realities. The more the being the higher one is on the scale of hierarchy. This kind of social order was reflected in the Egyptian system of Mahat. Mahat had reference to the Universal mind. Pharaoh was understood to have the greatest participation of the Universal mind. From Pharaoh on down, everyone possessed less of the Universal mind.  If one possessed less of the universal mind one was the slave of the one who possessed more of the universal mind. Mahat gave a slave order where everyone was the slave of the one above them who had more being.

2.) The West has put a twist on this continuous being thinking by adding egalitarianism to continuous being. If all being is continuous (Chain of being) and if that thinking is going to be combined with egalitarianism then no being is superior or inferior to any other being and as no being is superior or inferior to any other being then no distinctions that mark superiority or inferiority can be allowed to exist. Hence egalitarianism, as combined with the chain of being thinking (called Oneism by Dr. Peter Jones), results in the certitude that no objection can be raised against Transgenderism, sodomy, New World Order Babelism, multiculturalism, multiracialism, multi-faithism or Open borders because all share in divinity and all are equal. Indeed in this system of continuous thinking as combined with egalitarianism any distinction made in terms of “superior” (better) vs. “inferior” (worse) is the greatest crime imaginable. (With the exception that egalitarianism is superior to inferior notions of Biblical hierarchy.)

3.) Wherever you find the doctrine of the chain of being (continuous being) there you find the religion of chaos.  Chain of Being thinking does not allow a creator God who has distinct unshared being and who is responsible for bringing order out of Chaos so Being and order must arise out of chaos. Chaos gives birth to order and being.  As such, those social orders who embrace continuous being (and Evolutionary thinking is the very nard of chain of being thinking), also embrace the religion of revolution. This religion insists that in order for a utopian order to come to pass that can only happen by returning to chaos that order may be birthed. You find this kind of thinking exemplified in celebrations of Mardi Gras, ancient rites of bacchanalia, and of course the post-Endarkenment blood-drenched Revolutions (1789 — French / 1848 — Europe / 1861 — America / 1914 — Europe / 1918 — Bolshevik / 1948 — China etc.).  This thinking teaches that destruction has the capacity to bring Utopia.  Order out of Chaos reflects a dialectical thinking of one step back in order to gain two steps forward.

4.) Of course, “chain of being” thinking disallows the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible has being that is unique and distinct from the creature. (In Christian theology this is called the Creator-creature distinction.) In “chain of being” thinking this Creator God must be eliminated.  Of course, when the God of the Bible is eliminated God pops up elsewhere. For “chain of being” thinking the god which has distinct being from all else (even though lip service is given that no distinct being exists) is the State. The State becomes that reality which has the most being and so must be obeyed. The new motto for “chain of being” thinking is “in the state we live and move and have our being.”

5.) Since all godhead must have unity of being the State as the god of the Chain of being must work in order to ensure uniformity in the social order. The motto becomes, “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” If there is continuity of being and if the State is the Archimedean point of all being then all individuality in the State must be sunk in the god-State. This also becomes a factor in pushing all things towards egalitarianism.  The State becomes Queen Bee and all in the hive are drones serving the Queen bee.

Individuality is lost. Distinction is lost. Liberty is lost.

Marriage … It Either Has A Stable Meaning, or It Means Everything and Nothing

‘Once one says that a homosexual orientation is no more culpable or disordered than a heterosexual orientation, and once one observes that Scripture does not teach that God says that homosexual activity is always wrong, I think we’re left to conclude that justice requires that the church offer the great good of marriage both to heterosexual couples committed to a loving, covenantal relationship, and to homosexual couples so committed’.

Dr. Nicholas Wolterstorff 
American Philosopher
All One Body Lecture

A pedophile should be held responsible for his conduct — but not for the underlying attraction.

Margo Kaplan
New York Times Article

How long until we hear that the orientation for pedophiles is no more culpable or disordered than a heterosexual orientation? Where in Scripture do we see that bedding children (even of the same sex) is wrong if done in the context of a “loving, covenantal relationship, and to Man-boy love so committed,” as stated by Dr. Wolterstoff in regards to sodomy?

After all, if God is the one who gives the underlying attraction and if God is the one who wired some adults brains differently who are we to deny what God has done? If God has made pedophilia (or Necrophilia, or Beastiality) as merely a creational variance of sexuality who are we to challenge God?

In 1986, a short 31 years ago,  SCOTUS Chief Justice Warren Burger considered by many to have been a liberal could write in the Bowers v. Hardwick decision,

“To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.”

In the same Hardwick decision Burger also cited the “ancient roots” of prohibitions against homosexual sex by quoting William Blackstone’s description of homosexual sex as an “infamous crime against nature”, worse than rape, and “a crime not fit to be named.”

Somehow, in 30 years as a culture, we have gone from a liberal Supreme Court Justice inveighing against sodomy to a well-respected Churchmen and philosopher giving his imprimatur on the same.

Also,  we have to note the linguistic play that is found in describing marriage as something two people of the same biological sex can enter. Scripturally, as well as historically, marriage, by definition, is an institution that only can be occupied by males and females.  In the 1888 California court case, “Sharon vs. Sharon,” we find marriage defined,

“Marriage is the civil status of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and to the community of the duties legally incumbent on those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex. “

In Scripture Jesus defines Marriage as being composed of males and females,

Matthew 19:4 – Jesus answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ 5and said, ‘For this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6So they are no longer two, but one flesh.

So, when people begin to talk about the “church offering the great good of marriage … to homosexual couples so committed.” we should recognize that linguistic deception has just been leveraged, even if unwittingly done. Because of the definition of marriage, we can no more offer the great good of marriage to sodomite couples then we can legitimately offer the great good of the US Presidency to someone born in Kenya. Neither of the Institutions, by definition, are allowed legal occupancy by those who don’t adhere to the definition.

And while we are at it, we might as well note the same is true for the word “sex.” Given definitional realities, it is not possible for sodomites or lesbians to engage in “sex,” whatever it is they may be doing to and with one another with their reproductive organs.

When we get sloppy with our language we begin to lose what the reality that the language is supposed to represent.